WorkerWell-Being in Booms and Busts*

Andrew E. Clark (ParisSchool of Economics, France and IZA, Germany)

March 2010

Key Facts:

  • The mental well-being of workers is pro-cyclical: their well-being is significantly higher in booms than in busts.
  • More specific job domain well-being measures tell a more mixed story: pay satisfaction and job security satisfaction are also pro-cyclical, being higher in booms.
  • However, satisfaction with the work itself is counter-cyclical, being higher in busts. The same is true of overall job satisfaction.
  • The self-employed are systematically more satisfied with their jobs than are employees. There is no compelling evidence that this gap is affected by the economic cycle.

Address for Correspondence: Andrew Clark, PSE, 48 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014 Paris, France. Tel: +33-1-43-13-63-29. E-mail: .

* Data from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) were supplied by the ESRC DataArchive. Neither the original collectors of the data nor the Archive bear any responsibility forthe analysis or interpretations presented here. I am very grateful to CEPREMAP for financial support, to Simona Baldi for excellent research assistance, and to Jonathan Wadsworth for perceptive comments.

WorkerWell-Being in Booms and Busts

Andrew E. Clark

1. Introduction

Economists have over the past fifteen years become more receptive to the use of measures of subjective well-being to summarise labour-market health. There are at least two reasons why subjective measures of well-being are of interest in the context of the labour market. First, in a purely descriptive way, policy should arguably be concerned with the distribution of well-being across the economy. Along these lines, if we want to know which groups are doing better or worse in the labour market, the simplest method is surely to interrogate the individuals themselves and ask them what they think. It can be argued that individuals’ responses to questions regarding their job and life satisfaction provide this kind of information. Second, the analysis of the level of well-being or utility associated with different jobs can help us to understand labour market behaviour. If, as seems likely, individuals are more likely to leave low satisfaction for higher satisfaction positions (see Clark et al., 1998, Clark, 2001, and Lévy-Garbou et al., 2007, amongst others), then the well-being scores in the labour market may well provide us with useful new knowledge about turnover in the labour market, the decision to go to work in the first place, and retirement.

This subjective approach to worker well-being has a number of advantages. Specifically, it can be seen as a complement to the extremely difficult task of measuring job quality, or the quality of working life, as some kind of weighted sum of individual job attributes. While it is difficult to argue with the general principle of the latter, its empirical application would seem to be very problematic indeed. There are at least three major stumbling blocks. The first is that we do not know what job aspects we should be adding up (Pay, Hours, Job security, and the intrinsic interest of the job would seem key, but what else would we need to add?). Second, even if we are able to identify all of the different salient aspects of a job, can we obtain sufficiently accurate objective measurement of them? While this seems reasonably direct in terms of pay and hours, there is far less agreement about objective measures of job insecurity,[1] and a fully objective measure of the intrinsic interest of the job is not easy to conceive. Last, were we to have objective measures of all relevant job domains, which weights should we use to add them up: is pay twice as important as hours, or just as important? Equally, how do we know if these weights are the same for different individuals?

The approach taken here is to avoid all of these tricky questions by essentially letting survey respondents do all of the hard work for us. In response to questions about job satisfaction (or some other form of well-being), individuals presumably weigh up all of the salient aspects, calculate some net total and then give us the appropriate satisfaction figure.

The work presented here is resolutely in this tradition of subjective indicators. While there has been a great deal of work that considers the value of work relative to unemployment (see Clark and Oswald, 1994, and Gregg and Wadsworth, 2010), we here want to say something about job quality. Specifically, we use British data from the early 1990s onward to investigate movements in various measuresof worker well-being. The analysis allows us to describe well-being both between individuals (i.e. determining which groups of workers are doing better than others at any particular point in time, as in Warr, 2007), and any changes over time (have there been systematic movements in worker satisfaction since the early 1990s?).

There has been a fair amount of work on the former, so we will concentrate on the latter, and particularly ask whether any changes over time are related to the state of the macro economy: are jobs systematically less satisfying in recessions?

We have four main findings. First, different kinds of job satisfaction are indeed correlated with booms and busts. In particular, satisfaction with the work itself rises during recessions, whereas pay satisfaction and job security satisfaction both fall. Perhaps surprisingly, overall job satisfaction is counter-cyclical, falling in booms and rising in busts. However, job satisfaction is not the only thing that matters for individual welfare. The analysis of an overall well-being measure (the GHQ-12) shows that the general well-being of British employees falls in recessions and increases in booms (despite the contrary behaviour of overall job satisfaction). Third, there is some suggestive evidence that what workers find important in their jobs (their work values) changes over the economic cycle: good times are associated with increased importance of pay, but less importance assigned to job security. Last, we find, as is usual, that the self-employed are systematically more satisfied than are the employed. However, while this self-employment satisfaction “premium” moves around substantially from year to year, there is no evidence that this movement is correlated with the unemployment rate.

2. Job Satisfaction over the Cycle

The data that we analyse here come from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS). This general survey initially covered a random sample of approximately 10,000 individuals in 5,500 British households per year, rising to figures of around 15 000 individuals in 9 000 households in later waves. Seventeen waves of data are currently available. This data set includes a wide range of information about individual and household demographics, health, labour-force status, employment and values. There is both entry into and exit from the panel, leading to unbalanced data. The BHPS is a household panel: all adults in the same household are interviewed separately. The wave one data were collected in late 1991 - early 1992, the wave two data were collected in late 1992 - early 1993, and so on.[2]

The analysis here will cover employees only. The BHPS data include information on around 5000 employees per year initially, rising to 8000 per year in later waves. The survey includes a number of self-reported job satisfaction measures. Five job satisfaction questions were asked of those in employment over all seventeen waves: Satisfaction with Pay, Hours, Work Itself, and Job Security, followed by a question regarding overall job satisfaction. These were all answered on a one to seven scale, where one refers to "Not satisfied at all" and seven to "Completely satisfied".

There was unfortunately a change in the way the job satisfaction question was posed between the first and subsequent waves. In the first wave only the endpoints and the midpoint (i.e. the value of four) of the one to seven scale were given verbal labels; in subsequent waves all values were labelled.[3] To be sure that we are comparing like with like, I therefore drop information from the first wave when looking at job satisfaction. The distribution of job satisfaction amongst British employees over the 1992-2007 period is summarised in Table 1. This table shows that most employees are fairly satisfied with their jobs: over fifty per cent report satisfaction of 6 or 7 on this 1-7 scale, with the exception of pay satisfaction where the figure is 44%. The modal satisfaction response is 6 for all measures.

We are most interested here in the time profile of the different types of job satisfaction. As a first simple step, the unbroken line in Figure 1 shows average overall job satisfaction, which trended downwards up until the end of the 1990s, since when it has slowly drifted upwards again. In the same figure, the dashed line depicts the UK unemployment rate over the same period, which reached a peak of over 10% in 1993 before falling continuously up until 2001; from 2004 onwards the unemployment rate has been rising again. Are these two series correlated? Visual inspection suggests that there is indeed some kind of correlation; the correlation coefficient between the two is 0.6 (significant at around the one percent level).

Figure 2 depicts the same time series for the four domain satisfaction measures which are consistently available in the BHPS data. These actually behave in notably different ways. While those for satisfaction with work itself and hours worked are similar to that for overall satisfaction in Figure 1, both pay and job security satisfaction have risen almost secularly over the 1992-2007 period (although they are fairly flat in the latter years). Consequently, we imagine that the correlation coefficients with the unemployment rate will not be the same, and this indeed turns out to be the case. The correlation coefficients for work itself (with respect to unemployment) is positive and significant at the one per cent level, while that for hoursworked is also positive, but not significantly so. The correlation coefficients for pay and job security are negative and significant at better than the one per cent level.

This analysis of time profiles thus suggests that there is a relationship between the economic cycle and worker satisfaction. However, this relationship is far from being uniform. Recessions (in the sense of higher unemployment rates) are associated with lower levels of satisfaction with pay and job security, but are also associated with higher levels of satisfaction with both the work itself and hours worked. The correlation with overall job satisfaction is positive: on the face of it recessions are then associated with higher levels of job satisfaction amongst British workers.

There are a number of ways of interpreting this perhaps surprising finding. One is that those who remain in employment during hard economic times may indeed be happy to still have work, and thus mark up their satisfaction scores because they are comparing their own outcomes to the sort of some of their less unfortunate former colleagues.

Another reading is that there is a kind of selection process. If those who lose their jobs during recessions were those who had less good jobs (and thus who were low job satisfaction workers), then the average satisfaction amongst those who remain in employment will be higher. This is not because recessions increase the job satisfaction of anyone: it is rather that some of the least satisfied workers have lost their jobs, so the average satisfaction amongst those who remain in work rises mechanically.

One way of choosing between these two rival interpretations is to carry out a regression analysis, whereby we essentially calculate how the satisfaction of an individual with given sex, age and education, in a certain occupation and industry, changes as the unemployment rate changes. By holding a host of worker and job characteristics constant, we can avoid the mechanical selection interpretation.

For space reasons, the output of this regression analysis is not presented here. However, Table 2 below summarises the sign of the relationship between various measures of job satisfaction and the unemployment rate, holding worker and job characteristics constant. Broadly, the results are remarkably similar to those from Figures 1 and 2. Greater unemployment is associated with lower levels of pay satisfaction and satisfaction with job security. This latter relationship might be thought to be unsurprising: unemployment reduces (satisfaction with) job security, and workers in OECD countries consistently rank job security as one of the two most important aspects of the job (see Clark, 2010). This was previously noted in a regression analysis of European data in Clark and Postel-Vinay (2009). The fact that pay satisfaction falls as the unemployment rate rises is very likely linked to the negative effect of unemployment on wages, as described notably in Blanchflower and Oswald (1994).

On the other hand, satisfaction with the work itself is positively correlated with the unemployment rate: workers feel better about the work they do in times of recession. Again, this could be due to comparison with their less fortunate peers, or simply because work pressure goes down during recessions.[4]In the regression analysis, there is no relationship between unemployment and satisfaction with hours worked.

There are likely many other facets of job satisfaction (unmeasured in this survey) which are correlated with unemployment. The total effect, as revealed by in the first column correlation with overall job satisfaction, is positive: workers report higher levels of job satisfaction in recession years.

One restriction of the above analysis is that it concerns employees only, and only one aspect of their lives (their work). We may also be interested in how employees are doing overall in terms of their subjective well-being (and not only with respect to their job): this is the topic of the next section.

3. Overall Measures of Worker Well-Being

We here move away from the specific domain of the job to a general measure of individual well-being. In the BHPS, this latter is supplied by a score calculated from the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). This latter is widely-used by psychologists, epidemiologists and medical researchers as an indicator of mental functioning. The BHPS contains the 12-item version of the GHQ, based on the twelve questions (administered via a self-completion questionnaire) covering feelings of strain, depression, inability to cope, anxiety-based insomnia, and lack of confidence, amongst others (see the Appendix). Responses are made on a four-point scale of frequency of a feeling in relation to a person's usual state: "Not at all", "No more than usual", "Rather more than usual", and "Much more than usual". We here use the Caseness GHQ score, which counts the number of these questions for which the response is in one of the two “low well-being” categories. This count is then reversed so that higher scores indicate higher levels of well-being, running from 0 (all twelve responses indicating poor psychological health) to 12 (no responses indicating poor psychological health).

Figure 3a shows the average level of psychological well-being in the BHPS data by labour-force status. On the left-hand side of this graph, the self-employed and the employed report roughly similar levels of overall well-being. However, on the right-hand side much lower scores are reported by those who are not active in the labour force and (especially) by the unemployed. The fact that the unemployed do so much worse in well-being terms than other groups on the face of it contradicts the idea that unemployment is chosen by the unemployed.[5]

We now turn to changes over time in the well-being of employees. The average GHQ score of employees over time is depicted in Figure 3b: overall well-being amongst employeesfell from 1991 to 1996, rose up to 1999, and then again to 2004.

We can then carry out the same type of regression analysis as described in Section 2 above for job satisfaction: Holding sex, age, education, occupation and so on constant, does the GHQ measure of psychological functioning change as the unemployment rate changes? This analysis is again carried out for employees only.

The response is unequivocal: greater unemployment is associated with lower mental well-being scores for those in employment.[6] While this might sound uncontroversial, it is worth remembering that the correlation with overall job satisfaction above was in fact positive. So despite this positive domain satisfaction effect, the overall effect of unemployment on worker well-being is negative: the GHQ score is pro-cyclical. This is likely due to lower incomes, a greater overall feeling of insecurity, or more generally to feelings of empathy: we feel sorry for those who have lost their jobs, especially if they are colleagues, acquaintances or family members.

This finding for employees is consistent with other analyses using different datasets which have explored the “Macroeconomics of Happiness”. These papers (see, for example, Blanchflower, 2007, and Di Tellaet al., 2001) find that the aggregate unemployment rate enters individual well-being equations negatively in multivariate analysis (as indeed does the inflation rate).[7] Overall then, it seems clear that worse economic conditions are associated with lower levels of well-being, both for the population in general and for workers in particular.